Off-duty Washington County Sheriff deputy writing up the truck driver in a parking lot off SW Murray Blvd.(Photo: Scolgan/Reddit)

A man driving a truck along SW Murray Road in Beaverton yesterday thought it’d fun to harass a group of bike riders; but he got more than he bargained for.

According to a Reddit user named “Scolgan”, the man driving the truck pulled close the riders and then as he pulled away, “he really got on the gas and covered them in a big black cloud of diesel exhaust.” What he didn’t know is that one of the people on bikes was an off-duty Washington County Sheriff deputy.

Here’s more from Scolgan:

“… The driver ended up getting caught at the stop light a couple hundred yards away and the bike cop banged on his window and told him to pull into the shopping center. I watched for a few minutes as the cop was yelling at him for driving like an idiot and that he was using his vehicle as a weapon. I didn’t stay long enough to see what the final result was but it was great to see instant karma returned to the douche bag driver.

All cyclists including the cop were in the designated bike lane. The driver went out of his way to get close to the cyclists.”

The incident posted to Reddit happened near the intersection of Murray and Millikan Way.

CORRECTION, 7/8/14: We originally reported that the officer was a member of the Beaverton Police Department Bicycle Patrol Unit. That was incorrect. It was an off-duty Washington County Sheriff deputy. We regret the error. — Jonathan

Related Posts

Posted on June 20th, 2014 at 1:20 pm. Filed under Front Page and tagged with , car culture, rolling coal.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging
is currently not allowed.

NOTE: At BikePortland, we love your comments. We love them so much that we devote many hours every week to read them and make sure they are productive, inclusive, and supportive (heck, sometimes we even fix your typos!). That doesn't mean you can't disagree with someone. It means you must do it with tact and respect. This is our business and we do not tolerate mean commenters who add nothing of value to the discussion.

Unfortunately, we are not robots and we don't always catch everything. You can help by notifying us if you see inappropriate comments. Thanks! — Jonathan and Michael

It would be nice if something like this automatically warranted a careless driving fine. Actually, there are a lot of things that drivers do on a daily basis that could be considered “careless”. The police set the bar pretty high.

If the incident happened as some people have said it has, citations standing in court likely depend on whether the judge looking at this incident, finds the evidence indicates the person driving did operate their vehicle recklessly (deliberately driving their vehicle close to people on bikes purely to blast them with smoky exhaust from the vehicle.), and that a blast of smoky exhaust, does constitute physical contact.

There’s a link in 060, to 161.085¹ Definitions with respect to culpability. Some familiarity with what those definitions are, could help give some idea about how the actions of the person driving may be seen by people having to judge him or her from a legal perspective.

Since the driver was deliberate in his actions (lets assume) so as to have the exhaust create a desired effect on the cyclists, it isn’t a huge leap to consider it an attack of some kind. Again, as you say, up to the Judge’s discretion looking at the laws and any facts pertaining to the situation.

I dunno, it looks like a pretty recent truck. I used to drive a ’77 Fargo Tradesman box truck that had been modified by a previous owner to have a carb and choke, which (anybody with Mopar experience can attest) makes a 440 especially tricky to operate, especially when it’s warming up or stuck in traffic. If I saw cyclists, even though I knew my exhaust went to the left, I’d double-check the choke to make sure I wasn’t going to backfire next to them. Safe to say that if I could avoid doing something that would result in a lot of excess soot and noise in such a cantankerous contraption, someone with electronic ignition would have to go out of their way with malice a forethought to do make it a smoke belcher.

Even if the driver’s intent is not provable, it still costs him the public embarrassment. Plus, there is the half-day he must waste going to court to plead his case, possibly hire representation. No matter the outcome, if someone files a complaint against him in the future for similar behavior, it will still be on his record and he will not get the benefit of doubt.

Hopefully this story serves as a deterrent for many like-minded meatheads out there.

That said, there’s honest mistakes that can happen, too. I don’t think this is one of them, however, given that it’s a modern vehicle. My 1977 Fargo Tradesman would occasionally backfire if I forgot to open the choke all the way, especially coming out of the cold mountains and into the warm valley, usually on Hawthorne in Salem (and in one case, hard enough to deafen me for 20 minutes and fill a fart-can exhaust-equipped Honda with 30 years of rust and soot accumulated in the exhaust).

I’d hazard to guess it’d be more of a DEQ thing. That’s how Oklahoma busts people for rollin’ coal, and, let’s face it, being a Big Oil state, Oklahoma’s not exactly known for being particularly strong on environmental laws, but intentionally increasing your impact for the sake of demonstrating how microscopic your manhood is still crosses the (incredibly lax) line we have. I would presume Oregon’s tougher on that, unless they’re only kidding about the whole green thing, and the ORDEQ’s ban on self service is more about keeping the unemployment rate at only ~15%…

Lots of tickets I just did the same thing sept in a newer gas chevy but no smoke and custom straight piped exhaust very loud and I got a ton of tickets plus 60day impoundment I was even put in cuffs by ironically bicycle cops that stopped me I got nailed hard to hope this guy got it to I would say his truck got at least towed I mean my truck was once impounded for window tint two days after I baught it and I bought I brand new

Actually, in Oregon you sort of do. Bike Portland has quite a few posts on Oregon’s Citizen Initiated Citation, established by ORS 153.058. You’d have to get their license plate, figure out what they look like (so you can identify them), and go through the citation process, but it is possible. You’d also have to decide what to cite them for… I’m thinking reckless driving (ORS 811.140) would probably do, but there might be a more appropriate violation.

I believe these drivers have had to change the chip in the truck to produce the smoke. Newer trucks run much cleaner, so they do this on purpose and I wish they would get ticketed when law enforcement see these trucks. I think it is illegal in most states to alter the engine if it effects the emissions. D!x

He is correct. In January 2013 the US Department of Justice fined a chip maker a half million dollars for selling chips that replace the factory chip and allow “rollin coal” with diesel pickups. The company has to buy back all these illegal chips and pay the fine. See the details athttp://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/January/13-enrd-077.html

This is awesome. I’ve thankfully never had the “coal” treatment perpetrated on me, and most of my “near” (not really) misses with motorists have likely been unintentional, but for those few occasions when someone is really DWDA (Driving While Dumb-A$$) or engaging in extreme displays of red-neckery, and there’s never a cop around when you need one–this is surprisingly vicariously satisfying. I imagine it’s the same feeling motorists get when they see cyclists pulled over during a STOP sign enforcement action…

“What is it called if you hit a puddle and spray a pedestrian or bike rider?!?” – Derek

If “you” (by which preposition I assume you mean a car driver) intentionally splashes a puddle on to a pedestrian or bike rider, it is called Assault. If it is not done intentionally, then it’s just a day in the life.

What got this guy busted (besides, obviously, that he did it to a cop) was that he clearly did it intentionally.

Heh, I know from Google+, you and I have agreed on this for a long time. Even if I’m now going to have to figure out how to remove the “COM VEH” sticker off my 4-wheeler now that it’s basically gonna get mothballed in a week and a half as I start taking Tulsa Transit to my new job.

In my state (Georgia) this could arguably be reckless conduct, reckless driving, aggressive driving, aggravated assault (assault with car used as a deadly weapon) simple assault( the soot deliberately sprayed on the riders), and driving within three feet of a bicycle rider. All are misdemeanors except Aggravated Assault which is punishable up to 20 years. If Georgia has these options, Oregon probably does as well.

A rather calm and polite comment from a former “coaler” and why he’s changed his ways. I ***’ed the bit of profanity

Brian Hicks I am a diesel pickup owner, a Ford F-250 specifically. I can attest that rolling coal is real. I got the truck when I was 18 and I went around smoking people like a ************… Until one day I was mowing my grass t the ditch and I saw a dodge pickup slowly approaching with a bunch of boys in it. They covered me in soot and I do mean covered. I coughed for a week and have never blown smoke on anyone else. I actually took steps to lessen the smoke output of my truck and today it is almost 500hp and nearly smoke free. I am 27 now. I slow way down for bikers regardless of what I drive and make sure I coast by when I am driving something diesel. They think it is funny, but let them get sooted one time and they won’t do it again.

“the bike cop banged on his window and told him to pull into the shopping center. I watched for a few minutes as the cop was yelling at him for driving like an idiot and that he was using his vehicle as a weapon.”

At its age it will kick out a cloud of smoke if you floor it through the gears (though we do get MUCH cleaner exhaust out of it by using biodiesel instead of petrodiesel), but it passes DEQ. The reasons are:

1) DEQ only holds vehicles to the emissions limits that were in place when the vehicle was produced. EPA gradually ratchets up the rules for new vehicles on an ongoing basis, and if used cars were held to the same standards as new cars everyone would need to buy a new car every 4 years. A 2010 vehicle would be coming up for its first DEQ check right about now, and is going to have to be pretty clean, but a 2000 car can get away with more because the rules weren’t as tight in 2000. The cleanest 2000 vehicle probably couldn’t meet current standards (especially in the case of diesels, where the standards have been raised much faster); the cleanest 1985 vehicle probably couldn’t meet 2000 standards; and the cleanest 1970 vehicle probably couldn’t meet 1985 standards.

2) DEQ is mostly checking for smog-forming pollutants, but that’s mostly not what makes diesel exhaust so obnoxious. The awfulness of diesel smoke is mostly due to the particulate (soot) content, which IIRC is only subject to a fairly easy opacity check. If a vehicle isn’t spewing smoke under the light engine load of DEQ’s testing it will probably pass, and they won’t check to see what happens if you put your foot to the floor while in gear.

I’m willing to allow a modifier. Does it obviously have a gooseneck hitch and is it scratched and dented from actual use in the trades or on a ranch, or is it parked across two spaces in a downtown garage with a monthly parking sticker on the window?

Actually, in Oregon, you don’t at all. Police can stop anyone at any time for any reason – and arrest those who fail to do so. (note the right to stop someone does not mean the right to detail, or to hold, or to arrest – which are separate rights which have special conditions) Police also have a very broad class of rights which pertain to “in the course of their duties”, which I would point out is not the same as “as required by their duties”. Just like marriage grants more than 200 rights not available to a single person, being a police officer grants dozens of abilities the average citizen has no access to. Joe Average could knock on the driver’s window, and can file a citizen’s initiated citation, but has no means by which to require the driver to pull over, to run their plates, to call for backup, or to arrest the driver if they failed to obey directions.

Technically, these are privileges, not rights – since they only apply as long as an officer is an officer – but the principle still stands. Being a police officer is an EXTREMELY privileged position which provides a lot of options simply not available to 99.25% of the population (on average, there is one officer for every 400 citizens)

Actually, in Oregon, you don’t at all. Police can stop anyone at any time for any reason – and arrest those who fail to do so. (note the right to stop someone does not mean the right to detail, or to hold, or to arrest – which are separate rights which have special conditions) Police also have a very broad class of rights which pertain to “in the course of their duties”, which I would point out is not the same as “as required by their duties”. Just like marriage grants more than 200 rights not available to a single person, being a police officer grants dozens of abilities the average citizen has no access to. Joe Average could knock on the driver’s window, and can file a citizen’s initiated citation, but has no means by which to require the driver to pull over, to run their plates, to call for backup, or to arrest the driver if they failed to obey directions. Technically, these are privileges, not rights – since they only apply as long as an officer is an officer – but the principle still stands. Being a police officer is an EXTREMELY privileged position which provides a lot of options simply not available to 99.25% of the population (on average, there is one officer for every 400 citizens)Recommended 13

Judd for the Defense “Police can stop anyone at any time for any reason”. Utter nonsense. The stop of a citizen requires reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is being/has been committed. Arrest requires probable cause.Recommended 1

“…Police can stop anyone at any time for any reason…” matt picio

Matt…you really think that? Anyone at any time for any reason. You sound so sure of yourself, and yet, you offer not the slightest example to support such a preposterous notion.

As for the rolling coal fella, I think it would be great if bikeportland’s staff were to approach the Beaverton Police Dept about possibly being kept up to date as to how his citations are responded to.

Will the guy suck it up and just go ahead and pay the bail amount? Could be a relatively insignificant amount for a guy that looks to be driving what appears to possibly be a very expensive rig.

Or will he take the opportunity for an appearance before a judge, possibly to present some creative explanation as to why people on bikes just happened to get a concentrated blast of L.A. type smog from his little old four wheeler? It’s a shame to let some stories die without a suitable denouement.

Matt didn’t say police can stop anyone at any time, ‘legally’, and arrest those who fail to do so, so in a sense, I suppose it could be said that his statement is correct with the limitation he gave it. There are corrupt people in every profession and every walk of life, so I don’t doubt that there have been and are, police officers that to harass people, will abuse the authority the law gives them.

I think it’s fair to say though, that most police aren’t going to stop people without some legitimate reason for doing so. What I understand is that the pretext they may note and use to stop someone, may be trivial, relative to a greater reason they may have to check someone out. The old, ‘stop them for expired, tags, burned out tail light, etc, routine.

Probably. Last time I was at the Rose City Pow Wow, I know a few people from eastern Oklahoma’s tribes were annoyed by the number of times they were stopped, particularly in Oregon, just for having tribal plates. And I know a couple other people complained about getting stopped only to get a ridiculous warning like not displaying a front plate (most of the states and pretty much all of the tribes here don’t issue front plates). I had to go through the trouble to get a ticket for not having a front plate dismissed in Washington County last time I went back because I was never issued one in the first place back in ’11.

Some jack hole did this to the entire Ride The Rockies group on Day 1 of the ride just a few weeks ago. I’d never experienced it before and couldn’t believe someone would be such an ass. I guess it comes down to riders having to take shot from drivers. I’m thankful that’s the worst he did. And then I’m pissed off that I’m thankful I got harassed. WTF is wrong with this country? Dear Red Necks – please all move to one state and let us know so we don’t go there. :-/ smh

Or one of any five different Texas groups that don’t include DFW or Austin. Or Oklahoma that isn’t superceded by tribal sovereignty. Or eastern California (which, despite it’s redneckness, I actually rather prefer to the other half). Or Kansas sans Wichita. Or just Arizona in general.

“Police can stop anyone at any time for any reason”. Utter nonsense. The stop of a citizen requires reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is being/has been committed. Arrest requires probable cause.

That doesn’t mean the suspicion has to have basis. Having a valid, tribe-issued (or, heck, simply a state-issued) rear plate and no front plate (from a tribe or state that doesn’t issue front plates and has the authority to issue plates) near a clueless cop is basis enough, as most of the attendees of the Rose City Pow Wow can attest.

Did he get arrested I’m going to assume he got a ticket for sure but tickets sent good enough they need to impound people’s vehicles when they do that does any one no what end punishment was for that person was

While this behavior is childish and not acceptable – perhaps the bikers can stop blowing stop lights. Almost got nailed at the blues fest at the waterfront today. Had he hit me we both would have went down and I would have filed full civil and criminal charges.

You missed the post where they mounted a video camera and counted the number and percentage of cyclists and drivers running the red at an intersection. 94% of cyclists stopped and waited for the green, compared to 87% of the drivers and drivers tended to go through at speed where most cyclists went through at a walking pace after checking traffic.

sorry but I never believe people when they say they almost got hit… you know what insurance companies call that? a non-incident… you got missed…

everywhere you turn you almost get hit by somebody or something… but people are generally watching where they’re going… you’re not always looking where everybody else is going… so yes, you’ll often be surprised by things you didn’t know were there… but that doesn’t mean that they almost hit you…

This deserves amplification. Along with it’s (inverted) cousin ‘he was wearing dark clothes and I almost hit him’ as in “because the wise ninja’s dark gear doesn’t allow people driving to see them until a collision is unavoidable.” wsbob

That said, even where ninja operation is legal (such as any road in Oklahoma with a speed limit of 25 or lower, in which case, nobody is required to be lighted, including motorists) doesn’t make it a smart idea. And, by firsthand experience, it doesn’t make such operation 1) well appreciated by anyone outside a drive-in theater, where not having your lights on it’s expected behavior, or 2) not subject to getting yelled at by other road users who were surprised by your presence.

Also depends on the location. I know my state (Oklahoma) hasn’t updated the driver’s manual since 2009 or the bicyclist manual since the 1970s, and the motorcyclist manual somewhere between the two, but most bicyclists and motorcyclists are aware of Oklahoma’s Idaho Stop law (motorcycles, bicycles and mopeds can treat stops the same as yields, and steady reds as flashing reds), while most motorists aren’t. So, make sure your knowledge of the rules in the areas you travel is current before going to those areas.

I’ve done it to a few cyclists out by me.. though there’s 100’s of miles of tax paid for trails they chose to ride on the rural roads 3-34 wide blocking traffic… this is the only time I’ve done it. If you can’t respect my right to drive and get where I need to.. then I dont respect yours to breath fresh air..

bob, you get a point for being so candid. But “If you can’t respect my right to drive and get where I need to.. then I dont respect yours to breath fresh air” could be worded (more truthfully) as: “If you can’t respect my urge to overtake you, show you who owns this road, whenever I feel like it, then I dont respect yours to breath fresh air.”

“there’s 100′s of miles of tax paid for trails they chose to ride on the rural roads”

(1) Some of us don’t bike primarily for recreation, and so trails of which you speak, that bear no relationship to the places I’m trying to go, even in rural Oregon, aren’t really that pertinent here. Maybe I live on that road, eh?

(2) Let’s say the folks you find so coal-worthy were trying to reach those trails from wherever they live. I don’t see the problem. How do you get to the ski slopes?

(3) You and Hugo. Where do you folks get the idea that rural roads are only for you and your big diesel rig with the smokey exhaust? Is there an ORS you’d like to cite?

This. I mean, I ride whenever I can, for utility purposes primarily (I mean, The Weather Channel was saying that Conditions at Tulsa at 8PM yesterday was “102°, 95% relative humidity, feels like Alderaan”, so forgive me for not leaving the immediate aim of the air conditioning duct except to drive to the nearest innertube driftable river this time of year), but, despite the fact that I drive a Malibu on the job, I still have to placard my vehicle as a commercial vehicle, and pay the higher car tax and insurance rates for doing so. Needless to say, I get pissed at amatuer motorists with an entitlement complex.

Aaah, the good old “why don’t you use the cycleway instead of the road I use” argument. Well, I’m a commercial driver. Why don’t you stick to the city streets and off the interstate where you get in my way?

Sharing the road means sharing the rules, don’t blow through red lights, don’t ride your bike across the crosswalk, ride single file so people can get around you in a safe and timely manner. Just because you ride your bike doesn’t make you better or more important than anyone else.

O.K., suckmycoal, now you’ve given us your views on what it means to share the road for people riding bikes. But can you tell us what it means for those of you driving cars? What rules are you and your ilk supposed to follow?

Hey suckmycoal, what in the world do all the rules you cite have to do with blowing coal? Why is it that when we call a motorist on bad behavior, the response is always to bring up alleged, unrelated behavior of other cyclists? Why is the alleged behavior of cyclists always, always, ALWAYS a segue to calling our right to the road into question?

Besides, near as I can tell cyclists are probably more law-abiding than motorists, on the whole (it’s just that drivers seem to break a different. set of laws). You’re an ignorant participant in a mass delusion: when you see a fellow driver break the law, you barely notice it or chalk it up as one individual dork on the road; when you see a cyclist break the law, you chalk it up as more “proof” that cyclists are lawbreakers.

So maybe it’s more fitting for me to call YOUR right to the road into question. Because everyone have a right to travel – and yes bob, a right to clean air – but no one has a a right to drive. Had you taken Drivers Ed, you would know that driving is a privilege and not a right. Motor vehicle laws exist first and foremost to protect people (including drivers) from the dangers posed by 2000-8000 pound projectiles hurtling around our streets. If you can’t follow the rules, turn in the keys and either ride the bus or join us.

Since you brought it up, I’ll fix your admonition:

Sharing the road means sharing the rules: don’t speed, don’t change lanes without signaling, don’t tailgate, don’t blast through crosswalks when pedestrians are waiting to cross, don’t roll stop signs, don’t text or fiddle with your smartphone while your vehicle is moving, don’t run over people in crosswalks when you’re trying to turn right onto a busy road and you’ve been staring left so long you forgot to check.

I see each and every one of these rules violated by motorists EVERY DAY, some of them continuously. So don’t bring up this crap about cyclists not following the rules.

You could check oregonlaws.org, but I think you’ll find it’s not illegal, if that’s what you mean, to ride a bike in the crosswalk. It’s illegal on a bike, to enter the crosswalk from a sidewalk or otherwise, at faster than a normal walking speed, but once there and certain that other road users know they’re there, people on bikes using the crosswalk can pick up their speed to clear the sidewalk more quickly.

As Spiffy said, it’s only illegal to enter a crosswalk at more than a walking pace IF doing so means failing to yield to a vehicle in the crosswalk. You lose your right of way when entering a crosswalk at above-walking speed, but you otherwise may still do so.

And at a walking speed or below (e.g., when you’d stopped to wait, and just gotten the walk signal) not only may you enter the crosswalk on a bike, but you have THE RIGHT OF WAY over motor vehicles when doing so.

It could be drawn from a purely literal reading of the law, that on a bike, if the approach of motor vehicles isn’t close enough to pose an immediate hazard, it’s not illegal to enter a crosswalk at faster than an ordinary walk.

Because people make mistakes, from a practical, road user perspective, that take on the law could hold the potential for some real problems. It opens up the possibility of some examples of abuse of the road that are common and that are the source of complaints. Such as, people riding bikes making a route from the street to the sidewalk to the crosswalk and back to the street to circumvent red lights.

Because safe use of the street depends upon good judgment based on human perception, not slowing down to an ordinary walk speed when entering the crosswalk from a sidewalk, can pose a hazard, in that it shaves off time available to make a good judgment as to whether the way truly is clear and doesn’t pose an immediate hazard.

What’s the range in ways will people read ‘immediate hazard’ to mean? If people are thinking 3am, no motor vehicles visibly on the road whatsoever, that may work out to not be an immediate hazard, barring mistaken perception. If it’s busier traffic situations with motor vehicles visible on the road representing a potential hazard but ones that’s aren’t necessarily ‘immediate’, people riding and taking the literal read of the law, may decide to set out from sidewalks onto crosswalks at speeds that aren’t very safe for the situation.

I do live on these rural roads and theres nothing here but farms… farms need trucks and tractors to pull equipment and trailers. Also the few times ive done this is when they chose to ride 3- 4 wide not single file. These roads a barley 2 lanes wide. Let me add ive only done this when they know im behind them yet chose to stay in this configuation. If they are curious then I accelerate right before I pass then lift so I coast pass with as little exhaust as i can.

Just putting this out there theres two sides to everything.. btw when I’m pulling and holding thing up I try to move over when I can as two not impede the flow of traffic.

bob…I think that the kind of vehicle acceleration with possibly some additional exhaust emissions, you describe here, isn’t the abuse people are disgusted with, so you’re probably o.k., if that’s what you find the need to do on occasion. This story is talking about someone that may be diesel exhaust dumping as a kind of malicious prank.

As far as I know, people that bike responsibly, don’t defend the three and four people abreast style of riding. Two abreast, sometimes, if it’s not unduly holding up traffic, in which they’d transition to single file and then to the right side of the road as reasonable under given situations. Plenty of inexperienced and ignorant road users out there though, that may need some time to get a grasp of what their responsibilities on the road are.

I don’t believe you’re required to move over to let traffic pass when you’re holding traffic up in Oregon. There’s no minimum speed limit (but you must drive in the right-most lane). In California you’re required to do so once you’re holding up five or more vehicles on a two-lane road (CVC 21656 – in my experience this really sucks for people towing or in RVs because in traffic drivers are rude and don’t let them back in). Road rules are put into place primarily for safety, not convenience, and an inconvenience does not a transgression make.

I can easily see how people who don’t bike read comments in blogs like this and get the impression that we think our crap doesn’t stink, but believe me, not only do many (probably most) of the people here drive, we also get ticked off by the very behavior of other cyclists that so often gets called out – and then applied to us. But a great deal of the time bicyclists are accused of breaking the law by drivers, it’s because the driver doesn’t actually know the laws related to biking – or more appropriately how they’re put into practice. You can see this ignorance called out in suckmycoal’s comment above – lots of times people want someone else’s behavior to be illegal (or see it as such) because it’s an inconvenience to them. It’s called rationalization.

Just like you have cyclist friends that you agree and/or disagree with, there are people I won’t drive with, and people I won’t bike with. My neighbor is the most blatant law-breaker of any bicyclist I’d ever ridden with… and he’s a cop.

On that point, is where some people have issues with some bike specific law relating to use of the road. Oregon’s 814.430 may be an example, in that its wording does emphasize not holding up traffic representing “…the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions…”. Got to read the entire law to get the gist of it.

To me, considering the exceptions and all, it does mean that if someone on a bike is using the lane, and traffic traveling faster but at a still normal speed, etc, comes up behind them, the person biking does need, if conditions reasonably allow, to move over and let the faster traffic pass. That’s not a particularly unreasonable expectation for me, whether I’m riding or driving, but some people seem to have a hard time with it. Whether in Oregon’s law there’s something equivalent instructing use of motor vehicles, I’m not sure right off hand.

If the people using their motor vehicles to maliciously dump diesel exhaust somehow feel justified in doing what they do, through misconception on their part about what the law requires of people traveling by bike, then however it can be done, the sooner that misconception is cleared up, the better.

It’s the old ‘cultural change’ that will more likely than other kinds of efforts, bring about a better general understanding of under what circumstances people riding are obliged to pull over and make way for faster vehicle traffic. Bike recreation outside the metro area cities may be having some effect in further familiarity about this.

Very visibly increasing numbers of people riding country roads outside of Portland, Hillsboro and so on, present examples that give all road users opportunity to consider what the conduct of each other on the road should be, by law, and common sense courtesy, for given situations.

There’s bad conduct to be seen, across the range of travel modes. Macho peoples’ difficult to repress need to inflict some meanness on people less well positioned to stand their ground, is always going to be a tough nut to crack. No kind of education, regardless of how important it is, or easy to get, sinks in easily with people of certain mindsets.

The diesel exhaust dumping trick had quite a stealthy thing going for it for awhile. Now that the secret is out, it may not be so much fun as it’s been for some folks. Back in the day, way back, story was that some people would play a little trick with their tail pipe exhaust and a Model T electrical part. What they’d do, is wind up their motor, let off the gas pedal, and flip the switch on the gadget: Boom! Big bang and a huge burst of flame igniting unburned exhaust gas coming out the tail pipe. For those special moments mean people didn’t like someone behind them. The kind of mentality that thinks diesel exhaust dumping is funny, probably thought that was a laugh riot too.

Ah, there it is – I was wrong. If you read the wording of ORS 411.425 you’re pretty much required to pull over and let anyone by you up to and including the actual posted speed limit, or guidelines laid out herein. Doesn’t matter what your vehicle is. Like I said, the laws are primarily in place for safety… except when they’re contradicted by the ones meant for efficiency of traffic flow.

Regarding 814.430 (and other FTR laws), my opinion is that they fall into the “contradictory to safety” category mentioned above. I don’t really need a law telling me to stay out of the way of people who want to pass me, but even less do I need a law permitting me to be cited for riding in a way to prevent an unsafe pass – if I’m not riding FTR there’s a reason for it. Riding FTR (or in improperly-placed bicycle lanes) is sometimes contradictory to safety but rarely addressed properly by these laws…. technically the ‘exceptions’ address these situations, but not to the extent they serve as useful guidance to either drivers or bicyclists. As a result, situations exist where cyclists get cited by interpreting their safety (which the exceptions allow) differently than police officers interpreting their legality.

You may not, and that’s fine if so, but some people do need laws laying out with some effort at clarity, what the rules for them are and aren’t. This is part of what the law is for.

Sure, even well written laws can have a hard time avoiding confusion and misinterpretation of intent but because the alternative of no laws at all would probably be worse, written laws have come to exist. Bottom line is common sense underlies most laws. Applying common sense to their use of the road, most people won’t have a great need to know precisely what a written law says.

Most certainly, common sense doesn’t provide any legitimate reason for someone in a big diesel rig to pull their vehicle directly in front of vulnerable road users, to then dump the throttle and blast them with a black cloud of filth from the vehicle’s exhaust pipe. Hopefully, common sense will prevail, and people will decide to stop doing that on their own, so legislators don’t have to spend their and our time and money creating a specific law outlawing that kind of conduct.

“…you’re pretty much required to pull over and let anyone by you up to and including the actual posted speed limit…”

The key to 811.425 is the phrase “in an area sufficient for safe turnout” (emphasis mine).

I interpret this to mean (in the absence of a bike lane) that I am not required to relinquish the entire lane until I reach some point at which I can comfortably pull right, either to stop or continue riding in a wider shoulder, etc. It does not mean I have to ride the crumbling edge of the pavement at all times, and does not mean I need to pull off the road into gravel or onto other unsafe surfaces. It does not mean I need to try to hug the inside of a tight right turn, becoming less visible to overtaking traffic, it does not mean I need to ride in the door zone. I have used driveways, trailhead parking bulges, wide shoulders—any paved (or packed) surface that provides enough room to move over—to briefly take a break and let drivers pass. Most of the time, they’ve been patiently waiting and appreciate me allowing them to pass safely. Occasionally, I don’t need to pull over, because a driver has been impatient and has roared around me in a very unsafe passing maneuver.

IMO, another lynchpin issue in this discussion is whether drivers are legally allowed to half-cross a double-yellow to pass a bicyclist. Whether a driver believes they are allowed to cross or not makes a big difference in whether I can safely move from taking the whole lane (say in a section of blind curves) to moving to the right-hand portion of the lane (on a short straightaway, say), or whether I must first find “an area sufficient for safe turnout” to get completely off the “main traveled portion of the roadway”.

Pete, Oregon and Washington have the same 5-car delay rule as California. Regulatory signs indicating that slow-moving vehicles holding up more than 5 other vehicles must use turnouts are posted all over the state.

Thanks – with a brief search I could only find the law in California (plus it was on my driver’s test here a few years ago, and certainly wasn’t in my Oregon driver’s manual). You’ve may have already seen my opinion on this… it’s silly to me that we have different road rules in each state to begin with!

How so? We’re 50 independent states operating as a single union, similar to the EU (though the EU managed to get the goals of the US closer to the American ideal, ironically). The US is 50 states, several commonwealths, and hundreds of sovereign indian nations (that supercede state rule, as this session’s SCOTUS rulings have confirmed). Given that we have a strong 10th Amendement and the US is finally making good on it’s treaties with the tribes as best it can, how is this in anyway a surprise?

Well, we’re a federation of states, not a nation of provinces. The federal government can play a role in promoting consistency across the states, but leaves most of the lawmaking to them. Even the “national” 55mph (and later 65mph rural-Interstate) speed limits weren’t really national limits, but state-by-state laws passed in response to federal arm-twisting.

I believe many states don’t have the 5-vehicle rule anyway, because there’s little need. The law mostly comes into play on long mountain grades, which midwestern states don’t have.

And for the record, unless it were significantly inconvenient or dangerous (such as on a long downhill) if I were holding up 5 vehicles with my bike for more than a minute or two I sure as hell would pull over.

Agreed – seat belt laws went through the same thing as well. The point I’m trying to make in previous comments is that people in general – and bicyclists in particular – do not set out to hold up traffic, and that it’s not a particularly pleasant thing to do. If many of the people lodging the accusation about cyclists being in the way spent enough time riding a bicycle in traffic, they’d learn very quickly where it becomes prudent to do so as a safety tactic, and they may also become inclined to look up the laws that allow it.

If they’re riding double-file on a road with no escape, that’s no different from motorcycles doing the same thing, and exactly for the same reason. Wait for a safe and legal opportunity to pass. Western Oregon and Washington have far more legal opportunities to pass than we do here in the Ozark foothills of eastern Oklahoma, yet I manage to find the time to chill for an extra couple minutes before I can hit that Resume button and pass ’em while letting the cruise control take back over. I mean, I realize we operate on Indian time out here, but I still have my Portland sense of punctuality. And as such, I often find myself quite early out here…and we have a LOT more cyclists, equestrians, Amish, big-ass farm equipment wider than a four-lane road, state lawnmowers on the freeway, and other obstructions that are a PITA to pass than anywhere in Oregon does…and yet, we still manage to be polite about the whole passing situation. Put down the Starbucks and enjoy the break from whiteknuckling it!

I never said cyclists are law breakers. If you read what I posted I said a few times… meaning 2-3 times in over 10 years. As for tax paid roads I didn’t say that either. I said tax paid bike trails 100’s of miles paid by our tax dollars. (Paved and ready to go) yet most of the roads I’m drive on are gravel or tarred and chipped as best. …

I guess all I can say is everyone can be an ass. Dont lump us all together and I won’t either.

Btw I have many friend that are cyclist some agree and some disagree with.. funny to say one even told me to do it once when he was with me with the road blocked for over 3/4 before I could pass safely. (I didn’t, but he did yell at them) whole different topic.. oh well I’ll leave your forum. . Have a great day.

2-3 times in 10 years sounds about right. I see way more farm/ag equipment moving at slow speeds on country roads than I do bicycles. Both of them are such a small part of my driving experiences that they really don’t bother me much at all.

I’m not sure there are 100 miles of paved bike trail in all of Oregon unless you count painted bike lanes. Even so, nearly all the the people using those trails and lanes paid motor vehicle taxes and other taxes, and plenty of those other funds (over half for most roads) came from those other taxes, not from motor vehicle taxes. Considering that, and that everyone riding a bike isn’t clogging up and wearing down the road with a car, those trails and lanes seem like a pretty good deal to motorists. Have a look at Whose Roads” by Todd Litman, and if you’d like more references on who pays for roads we all use, see my posts in this thread.

Thanks for being civil, bob, and for following up on your posts. Best wishes to you, too, and please don’t “roll coal” over any unwilling people, even errant bike riders.

Thanks for being civil bob. Just to clarify your meaning about the “hundreds” of miles of bike trails in Oregon, are you saying all cyclists should be riding on those instead of on roads? What if there isn’t a trail where we want to go? Even if there were hundreds of miles of paved trails in Oregon (and I would be surprised if there is more than about 200 miles, even counting longer trails like Row River and Banks-Vernonia), that’s not even 1% of the tens of thousands of miles of paved roads in Oregon.

Also, why do you keep bringing up that they’re taxpayer-paid? Are you resentful that some of your tax money went to pay for them? Do you realize that user fees like gas taxes don’t cover most road costs, and that they come out of the general fund? In other words, that cyclists are paying for roads for cars to drive on, far more than drivers are paying for paths for cyclists to bike on?

Beaverton Police wouldn’t have done anything. Presumably since he would have had to slow down slower than the cyclists to get the transmission to shift down far enough to do that, and Murray’s a steep street at pretty much every point along it, he wasn’t speeding, so BPD wouldn’t have cared even if he did run someone over.

“If most Prius drivers weren’t such smug assholes themselves, it would be an actual problem. But for every Prius rolled coal on, there are 100 more doing 5-15 under in the left lane, not using a signal, running stop signs/red lights, cutting people off, or pulling out in front of the last car for a mile.”

My new Silverado just got impounded by bicycle patrol and its a gas I didn’t even blow smoke cause cant my truck was to lound (witch it is kinda loud) passing the two bike cops and the teenager bicyclists biking with them so they confronted me at a stop light detained me gave me a bunch of fines and impounded my truck think it was cause I’m 21 and they were two new cops still on bicycles they looked like there were 19 so just assuming there new cops I even had to go to station for brethalizer but I was sober so was all good get my truck back in 2days so truck owners beware of byicle patrol so if my gas truck was impounded it would make me feel better that I’m not the only guy that’s had a bicycle cop impound there veicle it was embarrassing

Sheldon, for precisely what violations were (1) you fined, and (2) your vehicle impounded? Even if you think they targeted you just because you’re 21, they still have to pin an actual statute to you. Just trying to understand what this has to do with rolling coal.

Or are you posting this just to talk about being pulled over by bicycle cops? Okayyyy, fine, and thanks for sharing … but why on earth would it be more “embarrassing” to have your vehicle impounded by bicycle police than by police in a patrol car? Why would it feel better to know you’re not the only guy? Is there something wimpy about bicycles that threatens the manliness of your truck if they can catch up with you? A little too much of your sense of identity wrapped up in your truck, perhaps? I’d suggest thinking of your vehicle more as just a form of transportation and less as a affirmation of manhood, and not being startled that bicycles can keep up with you in an urban environment.

sheldon Just saying If he just got wrote up with a ticket he got lucky I did basically same thing sept with a gas truck with straight pipe exhaust and I ended up with a ton of tickets And my new truck impounded they told me cause of my driving record its going to be impounded for an additional 30 days so I bought mountain bike and have since had a loud truck do what I did to me so I desrved the fines and my truck being impounded I guess and my silverado still sits impouded so ill be on this bike for while longer but still think they picked on me cause im young kid with a nice truck and there kid cops with a dumb badge wanting to get Brownie pointsRecommended 0 Comment awaiting moderation.